Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 12/3/2012, Part II

I don't think that my fellow Huffington Post commenters appreciate how sweet and lovable I am. :(

Great analysis. I don't think the currant Republican party is capable of turning itself around and becoming a legitimate working political party. Crazy sells and the base is buying. 
If "the base is buying," then doesn't that mean a political party with a large part of the American electorate supporting it is "a legitimate working political party"?

Your comment seems to contradict itself.
Having a shrinking base that is crazy does not equate to a legitimate working political party, it equates to an asylum.  Your party is becoming a regional party unable to win national elections.  Accept it or work to change it. 
Why do so many commenters today claim that republicans are "crazy"? Many of you that I've interacted with today have used that same word. Its almost as if it is a democratic talking point...hmmm.

Just two years ago the election results were the other way around.

Obama won by a couple of percent. The democrats won, but just because they won this time does not mean it won't be the other way around next time.

I take offense to the claim that the republican party is mine. If it were my party, then Romney would not have been anywhere near to the republican nominee. He is too far to the left.

I don't have a political party. Both parties, that will win the elections, favor restricting our freedoms and neither have even a vague hope passing a balanced budget.

I didn't vote for either healthcare socializer. I'm just going to watch the country spend and regulate itself into oblivion. 

If "the base is buying," then doesn't that mean a political party with a large part of the American electorate supporting it is "a legitimate working political party"?

Your comment seems to contradict itself.
think it through: the "base" is the hard right-wing that turns out for the primaries.... not the entire registered GOP, which is actually shrinking as embarrassed/mortified moderates try to scrape off the stigma of that "brand".

the "base" is loud and hostile, but it neither populous nor likely to grow any time soon; its core values run contrary to what most americans actually believe, and more and more americans are being repulsed by its excesses. 
Not all of those who voted for republicans in the past but did not vote this time stopped because the party was too far to the right. I voted for republicans in the past but I did not vote this time because both Romney and Obama have signed socialized healthcare into law and both favor gun restrictions.

The numbers I heard were Obama got 8 million fewer votes than he did in '08, and Romney got 3 million fewer than McCain got.

The public, I think, is tired of politicians who seem to be incompetent. When was the last time any budget was signed into law?

The democrats' base seems "loud and hostile" to us on the right. I'm not surprised that those of you on the left think the right is "loud and hostile."

I seriously doubt that the republican core values are different from the general public. On marijuana and gay marriage maybe. But I'd bet that the majority of Americans favor a balanced budget, lower taxes, etc.

If you want to talk about excesses, then I'll point you to the 2,000+ page Obamacare law, or the fact that the smallest budget deficit under Obama has been three times larger than Bush's biggest. 
Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.
It would be faster to try and ascertain when Lyin'Ryan said something that was actually true. 
I appreciate that you'd rather resort to name calling than actual arguments. It must be terrible to have no actual arguments to support your opinions. :( 
I do like how your article claims Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman as the best republican candidates this year. Interesting how they were the most democrat-like in their positions.

I wonder why a democrat would like the republicans who most favor democrat positions?
Shauni Waterdragon
Meaning that the majority of Republicans don't favor the current crop of Republican ideals. 
"Meaning that the majority of Republicans don't favor the current crop of Republican" candidates.

Fixed it. 
I saw another commentator remarking that "tea party two" is going to be even bigger than the first time.

I think they were right. If we go over this cliff because of republicans holding tax cuts for the rich to hostage for a deal, the tea party will vote very clearly for the democrats next time.

The gerrymandering won't matter as much when average americans of all stripes see you raise their tax rates because you won't budge on taxes for the rich.
Why would a group of people who are opposed to government spending and deficits vote for the democrats who have not passed any budget in years and who spend more than do republicans?
Floyd Hammond
Actually if you look at recent history, going back to Reagan, Republicans spend more than Democrats. 
The republicans do indeed spend too much, that is one of several reasons that I do not support the republicans.

As to your claim, let's look at the actual numbers (table 1):


Most amount of spending under W (2008): $2,982,544,000,000
Largest federal deficit under W (2008): $458,553,000,000

Smallest amount of spending under Obama (2010): $3,456,213,000,000
Smallest federal deficit under Obama (2010): $1,293,489,000,000

Summary: Spending has gone up under Obama. The annual deficit is triple the highest deficit under W.

The balanced budget under Clinton occurred with a republican house majority. 

No comments:

Post a Comment